SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2007
Tubal flushing for subfertility.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02433418 (Tubal Flushing Using Water Soluble Media for Unexplained Infertility), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Tubal Flushing Using Water Soluble Media for Unexplained Infertility: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tubal flushing for subfertility.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Tubal flushing for subfertility.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Article
- Hysterosalpingography: a potential alternative to laparoscopy in the evaluation of tubal obstruction in infertile patients?African health sciences · 2021Article
- Impact of genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection on reproductive outcomes among infertile women undergoing tubal flushing: a retrospective cohort at a fertility centre in Uganda.Fertility research and practice · 2019Article
- Hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography: is possible to quantify the therapeutic effect of a diagnostic test?Clinical and experimental reproductive medicine · 2012Article
- The effectiveness of reproductive surgery in the treatment of female infertility: facts, views and vision.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2010Review
- Assessment of Tubal Patency with Selective Chromopertubation at Office Hysteroscopy versus Modified Minilaparoscopy in Infertile Women.Gynecology and minimally invasive therapyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
- Update of
Authors and funding
6 authors at 8 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA possible therapeutic effect of diagnostic tubal patency testing has been debated in the literature for half a century. Further debate surrounds whether oil-soluble or water-soluble contrast media might have the bigger fertility-enhancing effect.
objectivesTo evaluate the effect of flushing a woman's fallopian tubes with oil- or water-soluble contrast media on subsequent fertility outcomes in couples with infertility. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's specialised register of trials (searched 31 January 2007), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biological Abstract and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised trials comparing tubal flushing with oil-soluble contrast media or tubal flushing with water-soluble media or with no treatment in women with subfertility. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected adverse effects information from the trials. MAIN
resultsTwelve trials involving 2079 participants were included. Tubal flushing with oil-soluble media versus no intervention was associated with a significant increase in the odds of live birth (Peto OR 2.98, 95% CI 1.40 to 6.37) and of pregnancy (Peto OR 3.30, 95% CI 2.00 to 5.43). For the comparison of tubal flushing with oil-soluble media versus tubal flushing with water-soluble media, the increase in the odds of live birth for tubal flushing with oil-soluble versus water-soluble media (Peto OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.11) was based on two trials where statistical heterogeneity was present and the higher quality trial showed no significant difference; there was no evidence of a significant difference in the odds of pregnancy (Peto OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.54). The addition of oil-soluble media to flushing with water-soluble media showed no evidence of a significant difference in the odds of pregnancy (Peto OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.79) or live birth (Peto OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.77). There were no serious adverse event reported. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThere is evidence of effectiveness of tubal flushing with oil-soluble contrast media in increasing the odds of pregnancy and live birth versus no intervention. Future robust randomised trials, comparing oil-soluble versus water-soluble media, water-soluble media versus no intervention and tubal flushing versus established treatments for infertility would be a useful further guide to clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.